If we are placing bets- put Chadman down for the 49ers. That young QB they have will be a knock-out player, and if they give him a decent deep threat- that franchise turns into a powerhouse once more.
Funny how we all base our opinions on Wallace's 'worth' on this supposed "Top 10" money- a claim that Wallace has refuted, and has never been given any substance outside of a couple of 'reports'. A few people have their nose out of joint because they are convinced he's not "Top 10" WR worthy. Fair enough. But that doesn't make him a worse WR, less valuable, than a Lance Moore. That's letting the anti-Wallace bias shine through.
Wallace is the best WR in Pittsburgh. He is a more valuable WR than Antonio Brown. He should be paid more than Brown, and he will be. Just not in Pittsburgh. By signing Brown to the contract they did, the Steelers effectively shut the door on negotiations with Wallace. Brown is a good player- but they have 2 other guys on the roster that play a similar role to Brown in Sanders & Cotchery. If they couldn't sign Brown, either of those 2 could have stepped up & filled that role.
There is no other "Mike Wallace" on this roster. Losing him means replacing him from outside the organisation. The team will be weaker for losing him. With holes appearing at Safety, ILB, OLB, NT, RB & along the OL- can the Steelers really afford to invest a high pick in a WR?
Chadman's problem with the whole Wallace thing is that the Steelers had one of the most, if not THE most, promising stable of WR's in the NFL- and they had a chemistry with Ben, which elevated them to being the top unit on the roster to lean on at gametime. None of the 3 "Young Money" crew were complete WR's. Yet, combined, they were as dangerous as you could get. Whatever monetary 'value' you place on it- these guys were worth the investment. Is Wallace 'elite'? Who knows? He's an elite threat- not many teams have as dangerous a player on their roster. And Ben likes throwing to him.
They lost Ward, Farrior & Smith last year. Hampton will go this year. Mendy too, probably. The Steelers were an elite group a couple of years ago- but they are losing key components of the squad. But most of the components they are losing were old, and declining. Losing Wallace hurts because you are losing an improving, key component.
spot on chadman.
I've resigned myself to losing wallace. The dollars just don't add up.
[QUOTE=RuthlessBurgher;539107]So basically, what you are saying, is that if he went to a team with a stud WR, he'd be starting opposite that stud WR.
In Arizona, he would start opposite Fitz.
In Chicago, he would start opposite Marshall.
In Houston, he would start opposite Andre.
In Detroit, he would start opposite Calvin.
In Cincy, he would start opposite Green.
In Dallas, he would start opposite Dez.
Not much of a surprise there at all.
Atlanta has 2 bona fide studs in Julio and Roddy. I'll give you that one.
The Giants' Nicks and Cruz I have on the same tier as Wallace...neither is clearly better or clearly worse in my mind...it's a matter of personal preference here, I would say.
In New Orleans, I'd also put Colston on that same tier with Wallace and the Giants wideouts, but Lance Moore is only a slot guy (been in the league for 8 years and his next thousand yard receiving season will be his first, in spite of working with a QB who has multiple 5000 yard passing season).
Mike Wallace is better than anything Philly or San Fran has at wideout. Jackson? Maclin? Crabtree? Please.[/QUOTE]
No, that's not my point. My point is that there are A LOT of better or equally as talented WRs as Wallace. As Steelers fans, we have a tendency to think our players are the best because we can't look at things objectively. The point is that on many of the teams I listed, he wouldn't be a #1. On a shorter list, he might not be #2 WR either. The word "elite" and Mike Wallace shouldn't even be allowed in the same sentence (oops, I broke my own rule). A team would give up a #1 draft pick to gain an "elite" player. No team was willing to do that for Mike Wallace. That's should've been the writing on the wall in regards to where the rest of the league stood on my Mike Wallace's "elite status".
The teams that already have a stud WR likely won't or can't sign Wallace for elite money because they can't afford to. The others simply won't be dumb enough to do so. Those teams have other areas where the money would be better spent. Atlanta will likely face that harsh reality very shortly when Julio Jones will want huge money.
I would put Cruz, Nicks, Maclin, Jackson and likely Crabtree slightly above Wallace but on the same "tier". All are more dynamic and above one-trick poney status.
In NO, Moore has been stuck behind Henderson for the majority of his career. I've watched a lot of NO games this year and Moore is no slouch.
As far as Colston goes... I would take Colston all day, every day over Mike Wallace and the Giants WRs and it wouldn't be close.
The best WR in the NFL catches better than 3 out of 4 passes thrown to him (R. Cobb). The best Steeler WR catches less than 2 out of 3 passes (and I will give you a hint, his initials are not MW).
and lest you think it is because of short dump passes, think again. the difference between the two is less than 2 yds/catch.